Thursday, September 1, 1988 - - - NEWLY FORMED CLINTON-RICHARDS PAC HELPS TO LEVEL DEMOCRATIC PLAYING FIELD WITH REAGAN-BUSH; LAUNCHES MASSIVE T.V. AD CAMPAIGN IN RUSTBELT, NORTHEAST
Gov. Bill Clinton embraces entertainer Barbra Streisand (left) following a performance at a fundraiser in Hollywood, California, on August 12th. Streisand is one of the primary funders of the pro-Clinton SuperPAC, 'Securing A Safe and Peaceful World.' Right, Vice Presidential nominee Gov. Ann Richards hobnobs with comedian Bob Hope last week in Texas. Public records reveal that Hope has also contributed to the pro-Clinton SuperPAC.
Des Moines, Iowa; 09.02.1988; 02:34:12 P.M. C.ST. - - In what many are calling a clever, if not game-changing move by the Clinton-Richards campaign, pro-Clinton superPAC spokesman Matt McKenna announced that
'Securing a Safe and Peaceful World' would soon be making a massive T.V. ad buy criticizing the President over his handling of the terrorist hijackings, while articulating liberal opposition to a war with Iran. Bolstered by post-Convention polls showing Americans wavering somewhat in their support of the President’s foreign policy agenda, McKenna indicated that he hoped the TV ad buy, being made possible by the newly created Super PAC’s, or Super Political Action Committees, would allow Bill Clinton and Ann Richards to capitalize further on the momentum they obtained following their critically acclaimed national Convention:
“No one ever said the Democrats could even DREAM of competing with the Reagan/Bush mega-millions-money-machine,” alliterated McKenna.
“But last years Supreme Court decision, in my opinion, was a good thing for campaign finance. It allows the little guy, the lesser-known, the candidate with out the backing of Wall Street billionaires, to get a leg in the race, and attract large and small donations. If campaign finance laws are going to make it easy for Republicans to take corporate money, then we see no problem with allowing private citizens to make limitless contributions to these superPACs. What’s fair is fair. And the Reagan Administration has been awfully good at raising millions themselves. I think it was, what, over $9 million they raised in July? They’ve raised $13 million in August, just announced apparently. So yes, they have the money advantage. But we’ve spoken with Gov. Clinton and Gov. Richards, and they both agree that this election is too important to allow the campaign that ran the most TV ads win. If the Reagan/Bush campaign wants to play dirty, as they’ve proven capable of doing in the past, we’ll preempt that, and do what we have to to get Gov. Clinton's name out there.”
The Supreme Court decision referred to by superPAC spokesman Matt Mckenna received scant attention at the time of it’s handing down in June of last year, though its potential consequences were warned about at the time. The
Citizens United case, as it has come to be known by most of the public and media, allows for the first time the formation of large political action committees that can act as an additional fundraising apparatus to the Presidential campaigns themselves. But unlike traditional donations to campaign coffers, donations to these so called “super-PAC’s” can be limitless in amount, and can come from anyone. The superPACs are banned, however, from coordinating directly with any actual presidential campaigns. Opined University of Southern California Political Scientist Kathryn Martinez:
“The most interesting thing about this decision is how much it was thought to be an advantage for Republicans at the time of its handing down in the Summer of ‘87. It seemed any limitless donations would help the Republican party more, given their closer ties to big money and big business. But once Reagan announced his reelection campaign last August, their own campaign fundraising took off. The SuperPACs were a non-factor, because, well, they just weren’t needed. They were a new, untapped, and seemingly irrelevant source of money. That was until Big Labor and the Hollywood film industry formed a pro-Clinton/Richards Super PAC, ‘Securing A Safe And Peaceful World’ and funded millions of dollars into the organization."
Hollywood singers perform together on stage during a Clinton-Richardson campaign two weeks ago in New York City.
TV ads funded by the Hollywood/Labor-backed SuperPAC are slated to begin running this weekend in several states ripe with Reagan-Democrats. The Clinton/Richards campaign strategy, at least for the time being, couldn’t be more clear:
utilize money from their wealthy SuperPAC donors to blanket with TV ads Northeastern and Midwestern states that had been picked off by Reagan/Bush in ‘84, such as NY, Conn, NH, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinios, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The ads will focus on the President’s uncertain and seemingly dangerous strategy in Iran, highlighting America’s budget deficits and already drastically increased defense spending in the Reagan era. The ad buy will total
$15 million initially, according to
Clinton campaign manager James Carville, the
largest single total national campaign ad buy in American history to date. As news of the amount of the ad buy leaked to the press, eyes immediately turned towards the Clinton SuperPACs funders, and found few surprises: backers consisted of Hollywood contributors such as
Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, Cher, Jane Fonda, Tom Hanks.
Big labor money from the Teamsters and the State Employees Unions added to a combined
$8 million to the SuperPAC over a period as short as just 14 days. The SuperPACS unprecedented ability to encourage the influx of large amounts of cash into political campaigns quickly ensured a more level playing field for the Democrats in the money race, while at the same time bringing the superPACs potential success as a money weapon to the full attention of Lee Atwater, Ed Rollins, and the Reagan/Bush ‘88 reelection team
Friday, September 2nd, 1988 - - - NEW HEADACHE FOR REAGAN-BUSH ’88 REELECTION CAMPAIGN: PAT ROBERTSON TEAMS WITH YOUNG PASTOR, ANNOUNCES 3rd PARTY RUN!!! JAMES DOBSON SIGNS ON AS NATIONAL CO-CHAIR
A Pat Robertson and Richard Land (right) 3rd party run "could make for an interesting race," says Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee, "if it weren't for the fact that so few people will have the chance to vote for them."
Chatanooga, Tennessee; 09.02.1988; 12:38:11 P.M. E.S.T. - - -
Pat Robertson once again commanded the attention of the political world this morning, when members of the D.C. press corps received word late Friday night that a big announcement would be made the following day in the Southern state of Tennessee. Having denounced the Reagan campaign’s decision to ax his keynote address at the RNC just 5 days earlier, few were surprised when
Robertson announced he would mount a 3rd party bid for the Presidency of the United States:
“For too many years, the federal government has promised the god-fearing citizens of this country that they would listen to our concerns. But we were ignored. Ignored by the press, ignored by the Democrats, and perhaps most disappointingly, ignored by a President we were promised was ‘one of us.’ That’s why I’m proud to accept the Right-To-Life Party’s nomination for President of the United States!” Accompanying him at his rally in Chatanooga as his running mate was hometown evangelical pastor and author,
Richard Land, a 42 yr old Doctor of Philosophy and Divinity from Oxford University. And besides his distinctive academic pedigree, he fit in wonderfully as a charismatic southern boy with a record of social conservatism to match Robertson’s. Together, pundits speculated, the two had the potential of luring a large enough number of evangelical voters to give the Reagan-Bush campaign pause.
The Right-To-Life Party whose banner Robertson would run under was a small, disorganized, barely-known political organization formed in 1986 by a group of well-known evangelical leaders. Originally intended to serve primarily as a fundraising institution for evangelical causes championed by well-positioned evangelical leaders, such as Jerry Falwell, the group decided to throw its weight behind a long-shot bid by one of their more charismatic, if not polarizing leaders. Robertson campaign manager R. Marc Nuttle, along with his boss, has long and deep ties in the evangelical community, and media reports indicate that Nuttle was highly persuasive in sparking evangelicals anger over Robertson's Christian-conservative message being removed from primetime by the RNC . Founder of the popular Christian political action committee,
Focus on the Family,
James Dobson, explained in an interview to NBC News, his support of the
Robertson–Land ticket.
“I won’t speak for all Christians. I can only speak for myself when I express my own personal disappointment with the lack of concern and attention paid to issues like school prayer and abortion by the current Administration. And I say that as a 2 time Reagan-Bush supporter. But after a while, enough is enough. Clinton-Richards are certainly not an option. Robertson-Land are looking pretty good right now.” The Right-To-Life party has qualified for ballot access in
just 13 states, according to Robertson campaign manager Marc Nuttle, and hopes to gain access in at least 8 more states between now and November.
Later that evening on the CBS Evening News,
Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee joined host
Dan Rather to analyze the potential political and electoral ramifications of a late Pat Robertson entry into the race.
“Ben, what is the likelihood that Pat Robertson and Richard Land, the preacher-duo, what is the likelihood that they could actually catch fire in this increasingly volatile presidential race?” asked Rather.
“Well, Dan, honestly speaking it’s slim-to-none,” replied Bradlee.
“And there’s a number of reasons so many pundits feel this way. First of all, the Right-To-Life party is a fledgling party that only has ballot access in 13 states, and if you look at a map, those states are the states with more liberal ballot access laws, and include more than a few Northeastern states, where the evangelical vote is much smaller. Second, the Reagan-Bush campaign is going to do everything it can to remind voters, IF Robertson becomes a threat, that Robertson endorsed the President just five months ago. And that was a pretty full-throated endorsement, if you remember Dan. So this obviously opens Robertson up to doubts about the veracity of his words. Third, a lot of the talk about Pat Robertson’s ability to attract evangelical voters was NOT born out in the GOP primary. If you recall, Robertson really fizzled with evangelical voters following a few small, early victories. Not to mention that recent polling shows Robertson is incredibly unpopular with the general election public. So yes, Robertson may have sway with evangelical voters, but he doesn’t necessarily have their votes.” “Well how much could his selection of another popular figure in the evangelical Right movement, Richard Land, one of the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, change their mind?” pushed Rather. Bradlee replied:
“Well that remains to be seen, Dan. But I think Christians will probably wait to hear from a few more of the nation’s religious leaders. People like the Reverend Billy Graham, or Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell… and perhaps most importantly, their very own preachers and pastors.”
Wednesday, September 7th, 1988 - - - BILL CLINTON – ANN RICHARDS EMBRACE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION OF WHITE HOUSE OVER FLIGHT 108 SHOOT-DOWN, JUST AS POLLING INDICATES AN INCREASINGLY SKEPTICAL PUBLIC
Bill Clinton campaigns on an unusually warm day at the University of Wisconsin. The largely college-aged crowd of 6,900 made it the largest attended solo Clinton event of the campaign season thus far.
Madison, Wisconsin; 09.07.1988; 06:23:35 P.M. C.S.T. – As congressional hearings began last week into the shoot-down of
Flight 108 over Northwestern Georgia on June 10th, 1988,
Democratic Presidential nominee Bill Clinton signaled a position shift by announcing during a post-rally interview today that his campaign was
fully embracing and supporting the Congressional Investigations. Following a solo campaign rally outside of the University of Wisconsin this afternoon, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton met and spoke with an ABC World News affiliate, where he was questioned about recent comments made during a Midwestern-state campaign swing, in which he appeared to indicate he supported the investigation.
“We’re less than 6 days into this investigation, and I have to say that Congress made a wise choice in appointing Special Prosecutor Chuck Bowen. He’s proven himself capable of handling a very tense, sensitive subject without a whiff of self-doubt or partisanship. But to answer your question, Yes, Governor Richards and I fully support the efforts of Congress in investigating whether or not what happened on that tragic morning had to happen. It’s an answer we are all owed, for the victims’ family’s peace of mind, and for the nation’s soul to heal. There were a lot of innocent victims on that plane, and a lot of questions that remain unanswered.”
Clinton’s newfound, full-throated endorsement of the special investigation into the shoot-down of Flight 108 marked a contrast from the lukewarm support he had given the investigation in the past. One month ago, just as the House and Senate narrowly voted to go forward with the investigation, Clinton was much less forceful in his support. But at the time, the investigation was opposed by most of the public. But over the course of just 4 weeks, the nation had seen strong movement in public opinion regarding the shoot-down, war with Iran, and the presidential candidates themselves. And the month of August was quite kind to Governor Clinton for a multitude of reasons:
1. He selected a popular Vice Presidential nominee that was different and interesting enough to snag attention away from a popular, post-tragedy incumbent President.
2. The Democrats had a knock-out, ratings-bonanza national convention that re-introduced Clinton’s Southern charm to millions of Americans, and planted the seeds of doubt regarding Reagan's direction for the country.
3. Most recently, a former candidate for the Republican nomination, Pat Robertson, announced he would run for President under the obscure Right-To-Life party banner, all but ensuring some votes would be taken from the Reagan Bush ticket. All three of the above factors contributed to the polling shift in regards to how the public felt about Reagan-Bush’s record on the June 10th tragedy and their plans regarding Iran. Thus, there's little doubt as to why Clinton, sensing the winds of public support at his back, would choose now to make his support of the congressional investigation very public, and very firm.
Secretary of State Schultz (left) and Secretary of Defense Carlucci appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide testimony regarding the shoot-down of Flight 108 on June 10th, 1988.
Further new polling also marks a shift in public opinion regarding the appropriate course of action with Iran. In the period of time since
Secretary of State George Shultz announced on
Meet the Press the Administration’s timetable regarding action with Iran on August 14th, both political parties had held their national conventions. But in the midst of all the political spectacle, an intense debate had raged amongst pundits as to the effect of the Iran timetable on the election. And as attention focused on the conventions, public opinion was shifting from overwhelmingly supportive of Reagan's timetable with Iran, to just mildly supportive, for two primary reasons:
First, voters were increasingly doubtful that war was necessary to capture Abdul Karim Obeid, the Hezbollah leader responsible for the June 10th hijackings. The strong anti-Iran fervor that existed immediately following the tragedy had faded somewhat, and an angry American public had calmed. And even though a plurality of voters still believed bringing Abdul Karim Obeid to justice was worth waging war with Iran, not nearly as many voters felt that way as polls indicated last June following the hijackings.
The second reason support seems to be on the wane for a conflict with Iran is this perception that the Reagan Administration is deliberately punting the deadline for war just past the November election in order to politicize the conflict. Both Governor's Clinton and Richards made great efforts to hammer that point home to viewers during the DNC - if capturing the Hezbollah leader was worth a ground invasion, why wait until after the election to invade?
Friday, September 9th, 1988 --- NEW JOBS REPORT SPELLS MORE TROUBLE FOR THE REAGAN-ADMINISTRATION. CAMPAIGN MANAGER LEE ATWATER: “WE’RE IN A MORE DIFFICULT POSITION THAN WE WERE IN BEFORE JUNE 10TH.”
President Reagan standing for a photograph with Lee Atwater (right) and another campaign worker.
Washington, D.C.; 09.09.1988; 12:04:45 P.M. E.S.T. - - - After nearly 48 non-consecutive months of employment growth, the Labor Department reported early this morning that for the second month in a row, the economy saw a steep drop in the number of jobs private sector jobs created. Non-farm payroll jobs added in August amounted to just 95,000. In July, the economy only added 110,000 non-farm jobs. Those numbers compare very unfavorably to the 363K jobs added in June, the 227K jobs added in May, and the stunning 452K jobs added in March. The 95K new jobs in August caused an increase in the unemployment rate to 6.4%, a fair jump from the 6.0% rate in July, and the highest unemployment rate since March of 1987.
Perhaps anticipating a backlash for the poor jobs report, the Reagan-Bush campaign dispatched their co-first-in-command, Lee Atwater, to give an extensive interview to Bryant Gumbel, host of NBC’s Today Show. In what many considered to be a surprisingly pressing interview for the early morning setting, Atwater played defense with the morning show host when asked about the state of the Reagan-Bush campaign: “Look, there’s no doubt, we’re in a more difficult position that we were in before June 10th,” admitted Atwater, who seemed to be acknowledging the Reagan Administration’s recent hit in the polls. “But every other economic indicator remains strong, and Bryant, you have to recognize how miraculous it is that this economy is still strong given everything we’ve been through since June 10th. That event caused stocks to drop world wide, and the precipitating fall out in the Middle East has also contributed to the lower employment numbers. But we’re not about to concede the economy, Bryant, nor should we. This President has a pristine record on the economy, bringing us down from 10+% unemployment rates in the aftermath of the Carter economy. He cut spending, while cutting taxes, and we saw private job growth soar. So Bill Clinton is going to have a hard time winning this election on the economy, in my opinion.”
But despite Atwater's insistence that things were fine in the Reagan-Bush campaign headquarters, new polling indicated there was cause for concern. Reagan’s job ratings were back in the mid-to-low 50s for the first time since before the hijackings in June, and the Clinton-Richards seemed to be gaining on the Republican ticket every day the Flight 108 Congressional hearings continued. Given an impending confrontation with Iran, the unemployment rate only compounded problems for the increasingly beleaguered President Reagan.
Friday, September 9th, 1988 (continued) - - -AUGUST FUNDRAISING #s ARE IN! SPENDING BY OUTSIDE GROUPS GREATLY AIDE CLINTON-RICHARDS IN MONEY-RACE AGAINST REAGAN-BUSH
The closing scene from a newly released and re-mastered "Morning In America" ad, promoting the Reagan-Bush record of job and economic growth. The ad was released by pro-Reagan-Bush SuperPAC, 'Morning In America Fund.'
Washington, D.C.; 09.09.1988; 3:24:35 P.M. E.S.T. --- Though both Reagan and Clinton broke their previous fundraising records (set in July), the Democratic ticket was able to miraculously reduce the money disparity between the two campaigns with the aid of outside spending groups, and most specifically, the super PAC,
‘Securing A Safe And Peaceful World.’
The
Reagan-Bush campaign itself raked in a record-breaking
$13.9 million in just one month, while the
Clinton-Richards campaign saw a massive spike in their donations,
bringing in $8.6 million, over double the previous month’s haul, before the popular Ann Richards was added to the ticket, and before a well-received national convention. But with powerful Hollywood Entertainers and Big Labor Leaders leading a pro-Clinton-Richards SuperPAC,
“Securing A Safe And Peaceful World,” the Democratic ticket, for the first time,
brought in more money all total than the Republican ticket in the month of August. The Striesand-Speilberg-Hanks backed SuperPAC brought in
$10.1 million in support of Bill Clinton for President. A newly-formed pro-Reagan-Bush SuperPAC, the
“Morning In America Fund,” brought in a strong, though notably less impressive,
$2.8 million. Clinton-Richards Finance Chairman Andrew Stein informed a CNN reporter: “The SuperPAC element of this is going to be really helpful in getting the Clinton-Richardson message out to as many voters as possible. That message is one of of a renewed focus on the American middle-class, not just the wealthy. And that message is one of avoiding conflicts with the Middle East. So while we can not, and will not coordinate directly with the SuperPAC, as campaign law forbids, they will focus on getting the pro-Middle-Class message out their that we need. In the meantime, the record amounts of money that we’re seeing raised and brought into Clinton-Richards campaign headquarters in Dallas will be used primarily for voter outreach, state-level organizing, and general get-out-the-vote activities. We never claimed we’d be able to compete financially with the biggest money juggernaut in American political history, but thanks to
‘Securing A Safe And Peaceful World,’ we can at least make it close.
Tuesday, September 13th, 1988 --- "The biggest thing to hit West Virginia in a long time!" BOTH THE PRESIDENT AND BILL CLINTON STUMP FOR VOTES IN NEIGHBORING APPALACHIAN TOWNS!
Gov. Clinton and Gov. Richards campaign in Charleston, WV, while President Reagan holds a rally in Marietta, Ohio, less than one hour away.
Charleston, West Virginia; 09.10.1988; 03:11:56 P.M. C.S.T. - - - With both President Reagan and Democratic nominee Bill Clinton
within 100 miles of each other on the campaign trail Saturday, the eyes of the political world were focused on a region of the country known as Appalachia.
Bill Clinton was campaigning alongside Ann Richards in Charleston, West Virginia, the capital of a state with deep Democratic roots, but one that had also been kind to the Republican from California (it voted for Reagan by a 55-45% margin in 1984 against Walter Mondale). But with Clinton-Richards on the rise throughout the country, the campaign felt a swing through Appalachia would be beneficial for the ticket come election day. The charismatic duo’s populist appeal, coupled with a quiet isolationism in the face of a potentially bloody conflict with Iran, was directly in line with the views of most West Virginians. Which is why there was little surprise when West Virginia legend and 30 year
Senator Robert C. Byrd, as well as
Democratic candidate for Governor Gaston Caperton, happily barnstormed in Charleston with the national Democratic ticket (a stark contrast from 1984, when Sen. Byrd never campaigned with the Mondale-Ferraro ticket in West Virginia).
Clinton was as direct as ever in his appeal for West Virginia voters: “
The honest, hard-working people of this region are tired of being taken for granted by a President who insists things are just dandy. Meanwhile, he’s running for a nearly unprecedented third term as President. That’s too long that he’s been in Washington folks, and too long that he hasn’t been out here understanding the problems of folks like you. And this disconnect with the common folk doesn’t just lead to poor domestic policy. It leads to poor foreign policy as well, as we’re seeing now. The President is issuing entirely useless, entirely political ultimatum’s to another sovereign country, and seems anxious to invade in the event those ultimatum’s aren’t fulfilled. That’s reckless, that’s needless…and quite frankly, it’s brazingly out-of-touch…” (loud cheers from the crowd of 800).
But the Republican ticket wasn’t about to cede any territory in the Appalachian region, as made evident by President Reagan’s solo rally in
Marietta, Ohio, a small town about an hour and a half up Interstate-77 from where Governor’s Bill Clinton and Ann Richards had just spoken. Though far from his best region in the country electorally speaking, Reagan had always performed well in this stronghold of populism, despite the area’s historical weariness of Republicans. But Reagan’s brand of social conservatism, coupled with his anti-government rhetoric, had allowed him to win this traditionally Democratic region of a swing-state in 1984. Appearing at his side was
Republican Senate candidate George Voinivich, the challenger to liberal
2-term Senator Howard Metzembaum (D). Metzenbaum was well-known across the state, but Voinivich had been running television ads labeling the incumbent as
“out of the mainstream,” and
"too far left for Ohio." Voinovich’s campaign hoped that Reagan’s popularity (he won Ohio in 1984 by a 59-40% margin) would be enough to push the senate hopeful just over the finish line against the liberal stalwart of Ohio politics. In his campaign speech in Marietta, Reagan chastised Gov. Clinton for
“drumming up rumors of a looming economic crisis, for the sake of political gain.” (loud applause from crowd of 650).
“Now I’ve been involved in public office long enough to know how these campaigns go, and I know that Gov. Clinton can not very well acknowledge the successes of Reaganomics and expect to win this campaign. So he has to attack. But if voters will please think for themselves, they’ll see how middle-class incomes are up. Everyone’s income is up from when I took office eight years ago. If they pay close attention, they won’t be able to deny that this country is experiencing economic growth, the likes of which hasn’t been seen in decades. If the American voters refuse to be side-tracked by misinformation and lies, they will see that the Reagan Administration has been good for the American economy, and good for American’s of all political stripes. Now enough with the class warfare and the politics of division, Governor Clinton! Let’s keep this country great, Ohio! Let us continue this long morning in America!” (loud applause). In the days following the campaign appearances, pundits would note that President Reagan left Gov. Clinton’s attacks on his strategy with Iran over the weekend unanswered in his Ohio campaign appearance.
*Map based on composite polling averages in each state.
Reagan/Bush - 279
Clinton/Richards - 63
Toss-up - 196
Note from pollster Scott Gallup: Comparing our updated electoral map to the post-Convention, August 30th map, it is easy to see the effect of a very tough 3 weeks for the Reagan Administration. The number of toss-up states has shot up to nearly 200 electoral votes, while the President has nearly dipped to the 270 minimum electoral votes required to win. Most interestingly, the Clinton-Richards ticket seems to be cutting into Reagan’s base of support in the South and Appalachian mountain region. The addition of Gov. Ann Richards has helped in Texas, while both the Republican and Democrats remain competitive in the Northeast.
Thursday, September 15th, 1988 - - - HOPING TO RECLAIM THE NARRATIVE, PRESIDENT & CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS PUSH AHEAD WITH NEW AMERICAN MORNING AGENDA
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Jim Sasser (D-TN), left, assails The President and Congressional Republicans over "wasting American's time" on debating the Balanced Budget Amendment. House Budget Committee Chairman Leon Panetta (D-CA) is pictured to his right.
Washington D.C.; 09.15.1988; 10:34:53 A.M. E.S.T. - - - Signaling a desire to return to the offensive in a campaign that had put the Republican ticket on the defensive since their convention, Congressional Republicans, coupled with a band of Southern sympathetic conservative Democrats, were successful in forcing a debate on yet another plank of President Reagan’s New American Morning legislative agenda, the
Balanced Budget Amendment.
The
New American Morning legislative agenda had dominated the political debate, largely to the benefit of the President, in the pre-June 10th period of the 1988 presidential campaign. Introduced shortly after the President clinched the Republican nomination in April, the
New American Morning agenda was hailed by Conservatives, but decried by liberals and moderates.
"It does nothing more than roll back Roosevelt's New Deal," lamented
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). "This President is doing everything he can to permanently reverse the accomplishments and successes our most successful progressive social programs."
With strong approval and favorability ratings following the GOP primary, the President asked Congressional Republicans to push for a series of legislative goals that sought to shore up defense spending, and drastically reduce non-defense spending. Under the Reagan Administration, though economic growth had been strong, the federal budget deficit had grown exponentially. While domestic discretionary spending was down, spending in other areas amounted to too much spending, and too high a deficit. In the political climate of April/May 1988, the President’s reelection team was seeking to push through some conservative accomplishments in advance of the November election, and to reinforce the notion of the President as the best man for the deficit and the economy, thus preventing Gov. Clinton from making inroads in his area of strength. But after only one success (Congress narrowly approved of extended funding of the
Nicaraguan Contras against the Sandanistan Government), the
New American Morning agenda was put on hold as Congress dealt with the fall-out from the
June 10th hijackings by Hezbollah leader Sheikh Abdul Karim Obeid (who according to American intelligence, was hiding in, and being protected by, Iran). But as new details emerged surrounding the President’s controversial decision to shoot down a civilian air-liner overtaken by hijackers, and as the President seemingly played politics with a decision to unilaterally attack Iran in the event they do not turn over Obeid, the Republicans and the President saw their numbers with the American public take a hit. For the first time, the newly formed Democratic ticket of
Bill Clinton and Ann Richards was consistently within 10 points of the once invincible President. As a result,
Reagan-Bush campaign co-managers
Lee Atwater and Ed Rollins decided the President needed a distraction. And what better distraction than highlighting the President’s strong economic record with a promise to balance the budget.
Senator Ted Kennedy holds the floor during debate on the Balanced Budget Amendment. Senator Lowell Weicker (R-CT) is to his left.
The
Balanced Budget Amendment was always the centerpiece of Reagan’s
New American Morning. More than any disappointment of his first 8 years in office, Reagan was most disturbed by the ballooning deficit amassed during his time as President. Indeed, the desire to do something about the deficit was a large part of what drove Reagan to seek a rare third term. But the President’s deep desire to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment also drove Senate Democrats to vehemently oppose it, especially
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Senator James. Sasser (D-TN):
“The President has shown yet again, that he’s more interested in election year political stunts than actually solving America’s deficit problem. Because the Balanced Budget Amendment is nothing more than a political stunt,” argued Sen. Sasser to a New York Times reporter.
“You can’t solve a budget deficit crisis by law, you can only solve it by the budget cycle. We’ve seen no commitment from this President or the Republicans in Congress, to cutting spending, yet they want to make it illegal to run a deficit. This is brain-dead. If we have a recession, the President’s constitutional amendment would require perverse economic actions by law, actions that could make a bad situation worse. I’ll fight this Amendment until it is defeated.” Allowing the President a huge legislative victory weeks before the general election was simply not an option for the Democrats.
Fortunately for Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee, Constitutional Amendments are very difficult to pass, and even the somewhat bipartisan Balanced Budget Amendment seem unlikely to overcome the high hurdles required for amending the Constitution. The amendment would have to pass with approval from 2/3 of both the Senate and House. If successful in Congress, the Amendment would then have to meet the approval of at least ¾ (or 37) states. Debate on the Balanced Budget Amendment is expected to continue into next week.
